mrshowrules:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Those examples are all hyphenated. I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

Also those examples are all in Arial font whereas the constitution is old English script so they cant mean the same thing.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Those examples are all hyphenated. I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

GeneralJim:mrshowrules: The US sucks compared to other industrialized countries regardless of the metric you use.So, move to some socialist shiat-hole. If you do, you will perform an amazing feat: You will simultaneously increase the average I.Q. of two countries!

vpb:Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest

What a retarded list...... States with low populations and a large crime ridden city are like a room with three people in it and one of them is you.....its a 33.3% retarded population.

The reality is that firearm homicides are overwhelmingly the product of gang violence/drug trade/criminal behavior.

Lets take #2 on your list as an example of how gullible you are.....Alaska with a horrifying 4.22 homicides per 100,000 people. Erma-Gerd thats high!!!! Except there are only 700,000 people in the whole state. Which means the number of homicides is around 30 people per year, or about 2 days worth of Chicagos death toll. Yeah, that is a really good place to start right? (I ignore #1 on the list because its Louisiana and New Orleans is insanely violent. Democrat stronghold too)

If you take gun violence by the numbers of homicides and not the per capita you find that all the most violent states....ie states where the most people die....are democrat states. Most of the country outside of the 4 largest offending cities .... All democrat strongholds with gun restrictions out the ass..... you find that our per capita hovers around 3.3 iirc. If you subtract the major population centers of every state the number simply drops off the bottom end of the chart into the abyss of statistically irrelevant numbers.

Gun homicides are a product of inner city poverty. More than 90% of all gun fatalities excluding suicides occur in large cities with high poverty rates. It doesnt matter how you massage the numbers to try and argue that no gun laws mean more gun crime, you cannot escape the fact that most people shot are poor black and hispanic males between 14-34 or whatever, i dont have the stats tattooed on my arm or anything.

4.22 per 100,000 is .00422% of the population. its statistically insignificant on a scale that beggars belief.

raatz01:That doesn't mean US gun crime isn't high compared to other countries, because it is. It was just INSANE (300% worse) in the 60-80s. I'm convinced the lead poisoning causing abnormally high violent crime theory has merit.

The rise and fall corilates to florinated water. We start to florinate the water and crime rates rise. People start to buy bottled water and the rates start to decline. It doesnt take a rocket sturgeon to see this.

CPennypacker:the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".

nekom:Dimensio:They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Of course it doesn't. That's just my opinion. I realize it's not likely to ever go away, but it's as silly as worrying about quartering troops in your house in this day and age. When the constitution was written, blacks were property, women couldn't vote, etc. It's not some holy document to be worshiped as gospel.

It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.

sammyk:Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

The ban on "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines expired so I can claim that more people being able to arm and defend themselves with previously banned weapons contributed. to the decline.

I think it would be smarter to look at the decline in gang turf wars and drug violence during that time than gun laws or lack there of. It won't serve your agenda but it is closer to the truth.

Most "gun control" legislation is nothing more than polticians jerking off a particular constituency(If we just get rid fo those guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grip stocks we will all be safer nonsense). Normally that constituency is the soccer mom for the children crowd or those who also need government to protect them from the evils of large soft drinks and trans fats is also afraid the 80 million lawful gun owners.

Dimensio:nekom: soakitincider: 2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

3rd amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Indeed.

Amendments 1, and 4-11 were also written in that time. Time for them to relegated to figurehead status.

Come to think of it 13-15 are also pretty old. They're only about 70 years away from those other anachronisms. They too were written in a different time and we'll have to toss them aside eventually, might as well do it now while we're on a roll.

I do have an agenda when it comes to #13 though, I'm in favor labor reform as I've talked about before. I'm tired of all the 13th amendment purists out there blocking sensible slavery legislation. Laws that allow for limited slavery are constitutional, don't infringe on a person's right to attend sporting events, and would help the whole community. They deserve a vote.

doglover:I'm opposed to gun control proposed thus far because none of the rules proposed would actually have stopped the events that they'll alleged to be aimed at stopping.

It's very hard to stop events that have already happened. The idea is to prevent some of the future events from happening. I say some of because that is the goal - not reaching zero, reducing the likelihood.

Given that same logic, you must be a member of the no-prohibitionist movement Then again maybe you like beer and have an acceptable threshold of drunk driving deaths that is greater than zero, much like most people to do with pretty much every issue.

I wish that folks would stop lumping suicide by gun into gun death stats. My reason is this: If someone is determined to kill themselves, they are going to use whatever means necessary, and all the gun laws in the world will not stop someone who has decided to off themselves.

I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

\That's all I have to say about that

I really wish you people would stop making this suicide argument. It is demonstrably false and it really undercuts anything else you say. Let it go. Suicide does not work that way. It is not a rational decision.